Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent
Control Order 1949, Clause 13(3) (vi) and (vii)-Eviction
Application
against partnership firm in the firm name as
respondent-Whether maintainable-Non-joinder of partners-
Whether misdescription
and can be corrected.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,O.30-Whether applies to
proceedings under C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent
Control
Order, 1949.

HEADNOTE:

In an eviction application, filed by respondent-
landlord against the appellant-a partnership firm under
Clause 13(3)
(vi) and (vii) of the Central Provinces and
Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (HRC
Order for short)
the appellant raised a preliminary
objection that the application against the partnership firm
was not maintainable without
joining its partners as
respondents. The High Court ultimately held that such an
application for eviction was maintainable.
Hence the appeal
to this Court.

Allowing the appeal and remitting the case back to the
Rent Controller,
^

HELD: (1) It is only by virtue of the provisions of
Order 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure that a firm can sue
and be sued
in its own name without the partners being
impleading co-nominee. But, since the Code of Civil
Procedure does not apply
to proceedings under the HRC Order,
no application for eviction under HRC order can be
maintained against a firm in the
firm name. [270D-E]
(2) The firm is merely a compendious name for the
partners consti-
269
tuting it and an eviction
application filed under HRC Order
against a partnership firm without joining any partner
constituting the firm as a respondent
to the application
would be merely a case of misdescription of the respondents
to the application and this misdescription can
be corrected
at any stage of the proceedings. [270E-F]
(3) In the instant case, the Court allowed the
respondent to
amend the title of the original application by
adding the names of the partners of the appellant firm and
remitted the case back
to the case Rent Controller for early
disposal on merits. [270H; 271A]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3027 of
1984
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order
dated
the 9th day of April, 1984 of the Bombay High Court in
W.P. No. 51 of 1979.

U.R. Lalit and Mrs. J. Wad for the Appellants.

V.A. Bobde and A.G. Ratnaparkhi for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BHAGWATI, J. The respondent filed an application under
clauses 13 (3) (vi)
and (vii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting
of Houses and Rent Control Order of 1949 (hereinafter
referred to as HRC Order) to
evict petitioner No. 1 firm of
M/s. Chhotelal Pyarelal. The respondent alleged that the
firm was a tenant in respect of the premises
and eviction of
the firm was sought on the ground of bona fide requirement
of the respondent for the purpose of his occupation
under
paragraph (vi) as also for the purpose of making essential
repairs under paragraph (vii) of Clause 13(3). The firm of
Chhotelal
Pyarelal raised a preliminary contention that no
application could be maintained against a partnership firm
and such an application
was liable to be rejected. This
contention ultimately came to be considered by a learned
single Judge of the High Court at
Nagpur. The learned single
Judge being under the impression that there was still
operative a judgment of another single
Judge of the High
Court taking the view that such an application against a
partnership firm was not maintainable, referred
this
question to a larger Bench. This question accordingly came
up before a Division
270
Bench of the High Court. It was pointed
out before the
Division Bench that undoubtedly a view was at one time taken
by a learned single Judge that an application for
eviction
against a partnership firm was not maintainable but this
view was over ruled by a Division Bench of the High Court in
a Letters Patent appeal filed against that decision. The
Division Bench accordingly held that an application for
eviction
under the HRC Order was maintainable against a
partnership firm without joining any partner constituting
the partnership firm
as a respondent to the application.

This view taken by the Division Bench is assailed in the
present appeal filed by the firm of M/s. Chhotelal Pyarelal
with special
leave obtained from this Court.

Now, there can be no doubt that since the Code of Civil
Procedure does not apply to proceedings under the HRC Order,
no application
for eviction can be maintained against a firm
in the firm name. The firm is merely a compendious name for
the partners constituting
it and it is only by virtue of the
provisions of Order 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure that a
firm can sue and be sued in its
own name without the
partners being impleaded co-nominee. It is therefore clear
that the firm of M/s, Chhotelal Pyarelal could
not be sued
in the firm name by the respondent in so far as the
application for eviction under the HRC Order was concerned.

But we agree with the Division Bench of the High Court that
this cannot by itself result in the dismissal of the
application.
It would be merely a case of misdescription of
the respondents to the application and this misdescription
can be corrected at
any stage of the proceedings. There can
be no doubt that the partners of the firm are before the
Court though in a wrong name.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has,
therefore, applied to us for leave to amend the cause title
of the
original application by adding the names of the
partners of the firm of M/s Chhotelal Pyarelal as
respondents along
with the firm of M/s Chhotelal Pyarelal
and carrying out necessary consequential amendments in the
body of the application.
We allow the application for
amendment and remit the case back to the Rent Controller so
that he may dispose it of on merits.
The respondent will
carry out the amendment in the application for eviction
within two weeks from the date of receipt of this
Order by
the Rent Controller and the newly added respondents will
file their written statement in answer to the
271
application
for eviction within a further period of four
weeks thereafter. The Rent Controller will then proceed to
dispose of the application
for eviction as expeditiously as
possible and in any event before the expiration of a period
of 6 months. There will be no order
as to costs of the
appeal.

M.L.A. Appeal allowed.

Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites